WebLens

search_places

Local business search via Google Places. Returns names, addresses, categories, ratings, reviews, phone numbers, websites, and coordinates. Price: $0.045

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_places"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum results to return
`query`	Yes	What to search for, e.g. "coffee shops"
`location`	No	Free-text location bias, e.g. "Austin, Texas"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed12 schema fields changedOct 13, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / limit / default
```
Added value: +10
```
- changedInput schema / properties / limit / description
```
Previous value: -"Number of results (default: 10, max: 20)"New value: +"Maximum results to return"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / limit / example
```
Added value: +10
```
- addedInput schema / properties / limit / maximum
```
Added value: +20
```
- addedInput schema / properties / limit / minimum
```
Added value: +1
```
- addedInput schema / properties / location / example
```
Added value: +"Austin, Texas"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / location / maxLength
```
Added value: +200
```
- addedInput schema / properties / location / minLength
```
Added value: +2
```
- changedInput schema / properties / query / description
```
Previous value: -"What to search for (e.g. coffee shops)"New value: +"What to search for, e.g. \"coffee shops\""
```
- addedInput schema / properties / query / example
```
Added value: +"coffee shops"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / query / maxLength
```
Added value: +500
```
- addedInput schema / properties / query / minLength
```
Added value: +1
```
First observedAug 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does meaningfully disclose the return payload (names, addresses, categories, ratings, reviews, phone, websites, coordinates) and a per-call price of $0.045, which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or result pagination beyond the schema's limit, leaving real gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three compact sentences with zero filler, leading with what the tool does and following with return contents and cost. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and it adds cost transparency. Minor omissions (auth requirements, result count behavior) are the only gaps for a simple search tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented with examples and bounds. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline 3 when the schema does the work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Local business search' — plus the data source (Google Places), which clearly separates it from generic web search siblings like search_web or search_shopping. It stops short of naming those alternatives explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The scope phrase 'local business' implies when to use it, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no named alternative such as search_shopping or map_site for the agent to choose between. Usage must be inferred from the domain.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All WebLens tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.